Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > ===================================== > > Can ELF Dumpfiles Solve This Problem? > > ===================================== > > > > To achieve correctness with ELF dumpfiles, one could perhaps remap the > > four types of pages to the three types of ELF representations so that > > "A) Not In The Address Space" and "B) Excluded Type" were both mapped > > to "1) Not In The Address Space". Then "C) Zero Content" would map > > to "2) Not In The File, Zero Fill". You would lose the ability to > > know if a page were missing because it was never in the address space > > in the first place, or because it was excluded because of its type. > > But if you read a zero, you'd know it really was a zero. > > > > I think this is the way to go. Why would I like to know if a page was > never present or mkdumpfile filtered it out? I think we can live with that > and lets just not create any sort of mapping for excluded pages in finally > generated ELF headers. > If "Excluded Type" pages were mapped as "Not in The Address Space", aren't you going to end up with an absurd number of small PT_LOAD segments? I believe the original intent was to avoid that. Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
